[belorn]

Arguing immigration policy is usually better to do based on morality. Economic grounds is a hard proposition, since assuming the government budget is balanced we can split any given population in two groups; one which under a given time frame increases budget deficit when grown and the other which causes surplus when grown.

If we only look at the economical aspect then the question about immigration is simply a crass question about averages. If the average applicant with their dependents are in the later group for the defined time frame then its a good policy to allow and encourage growth, and if its not then its better to prohibit. Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative. It is very possible that over an enough large time frame that result will change but their study could not make such predictions.

The averages for H1B applicants and their dependents could be different but the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants. Its a good incentive for doing more studies but I would focus the moral perspective of liberty and humanitarian aid when it comes to immigration policy. I have strong doubt that a rigorous economic study would fall in favor of immigration for any time frame less than 50-100 years, based on my own reasoning, guesses and historical knowledge.

[amf12]

> Here in Sweden a researcher did such study and unsurprisingly the result showed that for the time frame of 20 years the state economics from immigration is a net negative.

I would be very interested to read this study. Can you please provide a source?

What kind of immigration does the study account for? Is it refugee based or diversity based immigration which, naturally, could be a burden on the country because these most likely are not medium-high skilled immigrants. However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program which is only for employment based high-skilled applicants (granted some of these could be medium-skilled but these applicants are definitely not low-skilled) and contribute to the economy by paying taxes and contributing to the local economy by spending.

> the article here only cite a study that correlate economic growth for companies that hire skilled immigrants.

If there is an economic growth for the local companies, this certainly might correlate with the economic growth for the economy of the country. But I do agree with you that there should be a more focused study for this.

[belorn]

> Can you please provide a source?

Sure, its was fairly rememberable since the new reportage went bad since the news reporter tried to address and ask question about the political aspects and the academic economy researcher was very academic about it. When they got the question "why did you do this study when it could be used as political material next election" the answer became something like "we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".

I also noticed that I did miss-remember a detail. The time frame was between 1983 and 2015, so 33 years rather than 20 years.

https://eso.expertgrupp.se/rapporter/tid-for-integration/ - report (there is a English summery linked on the page).

https://www.svt.se/kultur/medier/forskaren-i-uppmarksammad-i... - interview

> However, the article here is talking about the H1-B program

Yes, as I wrote that could change the result and if so it would make for a great news. Further studies is something that should be funded as the political environment around immigration is about as bad as it can be. I also believe the argument about immigration as humanitarian aid is a good one and focus the discussion towards reasonable middle ground rather than extremes.

[amf12]

Thank you for the source. I'll read it!

> we were hired to do a study, and having knowledge about the subject is better than having no knowledge".

Haha. That's absolutely true.